Weighting the ratio by a positive auxiliary sequence (pn), the sign of Kn=pnan+1an−pn+1 decides convergence. pn=1 recovers the ratio test, pn=n recovers Raabe's test.
Prove Kummer's test: let an>0, pn>0, and Kn:=pnan+1an−pn+1. (i) If Kn≥c>0 eventually, then ∑an converges. (ii) If Kn≤0 eventually and ∑pn1 diverges, then ∑an diverges.
Kn≥c>0⟹can+1≤pnan−pn+1an+1
Kn≤0⟹pnan≤pn+1an+1⟹an≥pnd
pn=n, a=2, n=100: K1=0, K2=31, K100=10199≈0.9802 — Kn≥21>0 for n≥3, so the series converges.Show proof
Convergent half: suppose Kn≥c>0 for n≥N. Multiplying Kn=pnan+1an−pn+1≥c by the positive an+1 gives pnan−pn+1an+1≥can+1.
Summing from n=N to M, the right side telescopes: c∑n=NMan+1≤pNaN−pM+1aM+1≤pNaN (the last inequality uses pM+1aM+1>0). So the partial sums of the positive-term series ∑an are bounded above: ∑an converges.
Divergent half: suppose Kn≤0 for n≥N. Multiplying pnan+1an≤pn+1 by the positive an+1 gives pnan≤pn+1an+1 — so pnan is increasing, and pnan≥pNaN=:d>0 for n≥N.
Hence an≥pnd for n≥N, and since ∑pn1 diverges, comparison gives that ∑an diverges. The intuition: pn is a probe, and the ratio test (pn=1) and Raabe's test (pn=n) are its special cases.
Numerical check (pn=n, a=2): Kn=n+1n−1, so K1=0, K2=31, K100=10199≈0.9802 — matching the caption, and Kn≥21 for n≥3 puts the convergent half to work with c=21.
Show that Raabe's test is Kummer's test with pn=n, and prove that for L:=limn→∞n(an+1an−1): convergence if L>1, divergence if L<1.
pn=n:Kn=n(an+1an−1)−1n→∞L−1
Gauss example a=2: n(an+1an−1)=n+12n→L=2, K100=10199≈0.9802→L−1=1 — convergent since L>1.Show proof
Plugging in pn=n gives Kn=nan+1an−(n+1)=n(an+1an−1)−1. Taking limits, Kn→L−1 — the Raabe quotient shifted by 1.
If L>1, then Kn→L−1>0, so eventually Kn≥2L−1>0. Kummer's convergent half (with c=2L−1) gives convergence of ∑an.
If L<1, then Kn→L−1<0, so eventually Kn≤2L−1<0. And ∑pn1=∑n1 diverges (harmonic series), so Kummer's divergent half gives divergence of ∑an.
Numerical check (Gauss example a=2): an+1an=1+n+12, so n(an+1an−1)=n+12n→2=L and Kn=n+12n−1=n+1n−1→1=L−1 — K100=10199≈0.9802 matches the caption.
As a corollary of Gauss's test: for an=(a+1)(a+2)⋯(a+n)n!, show an+1an=1+na+O(n21) (i.e. Gauss h=a), then prove via Kummer's test that ∑an converges for a=2 and diverges for a=21.
pn=n, a=21, n=100: K1=−0.75, K100=101−51≈−0.505<0 — the series diverges since ∑n1 diverges. (At the same n, a=2 gives K100=10199≈0.9802>0: convergent.)Show proof
Computing the ratio directly: an+1an=(a+1)⋯(a+n)n!⋅(n+1)!(a+1)⋯(a+n+1)=n+1n+a+1=1+n+1a. Since n+1a=na⋅n+1n=na−n(n+1)a, this is the Gauss form 1+nh+O(n21) with h=a. And n+1a→0, so the ratio tends to 1: the ratio test is powerless.
For a=2 we verify the closed form: an=3⋅4⋯(n+2)n!=(n+2)!n!⋅2=(n+1)(n+2)2 (multiplying top and bottom by 1⋅2=2 completes (n+2)!). Indeed a1=31=2⋅32. So an=2(n+11−n+21) telescopes: ∑n=1Man=2(21−M+21)→1 — the series sums to 1.
Back to the Kummer quotient (pn=n): Kn=nn+1n+a+1−(n+1)=n+1(a−1)n−1→a−1. For a=2, Kn=n+1n−1→1>0 (with Kn≥21 for n≥3), so Kummer's convergent half gives convergence — agreeing with the telescoping closed form (K100=10199≈0.9802).
For a=21, Kn=n+1−0.5n−1→−21<0, so eventually Kn≤0. Since ∑pn1=∑n1 diverges, Kummer's divergent half gives divergence of ∑an (K1=−0.75, K100=101−51≈−0.505 — matching the caption).